[Advaita-l] Advaita-l Digest, Vol 2, Issue 29

[kuntimaddi sadananda]

--- "Kotekal, Srinivas [Non-Employee/0200]"
<srinivas.kotekal at pharmacia.com> wrote:
>
> >> 
> >> If you read Shruti vAkya "ekam eva advitiiyam" as "there cannot be
> >> anything
> >> other
> >> than Brahman" ; then following fundamental question arises ;
> 
> >Hold it right there Srinivas - when you say the question arises - you
> >are already in the realm of ignorance. 
> 
> Stop...Stop..Sadananda-ji...
> 
> I questioned so because you quoted "ekam eva advitiiyam" in the first
> place.
> Right ? If my question is in domain of ignorance, why can't you and
> your
> assertion of "ekam..." is also be in the same domain in the first
> place ?!?.
> For that matter, why can't statement's owner, Shruti, itself be in
> such
> domain ?... you tell me ?
> 
> Why do you consider Shruti and its statement is in non-ignorance
> domain but
> any questions about them are in ignorance domain ? 
> 

Sorry - I donot understand the question - what domain are you taking
about. The shruti is addressing only the ignorent fellow - not a
j~naani. Your question sounds like why cannot chemistry knowledge be in
the domain of chemistry ignorance, if I say chemistry is taught to the
one who is ignorant of chemistry.    I get the feeling you are just
wasting my time Srinivas. Mundaka defines para and apara vidya and see
under what catergory the veda-s are put, if that is what your question
is. 


> 
> > Then we are coming to dwaita -
> >since there is questioner and question and questioning. 
> 
> Don't forget...questioner,question,questioning and subject of question
> (Shruti) are all in the same domain to begin with. 

>

Sorry does not make any sense to me.  

> >J~naani will not ask  such questions. 
> 
> Then, what is the difference between non-Hindu and JnAni ? both will
> not
> question about "ekam eva advitiiyam" anyway. Or, if non-questioning is
> considered as jnAni laxaNa, every child in this world is jnAni to say
> so !

You are kidding! I expected better questioning from you. you are using a
converse statement and posing the question.  What kind of questioning is
that my friend.  I said j~naani knows and therefore he does not ask -
does that imply that whoever does not ask is a j~naani.  Did I make a
statement that not askig questions is a sufficent and necessory
qualifications for j~naani - Dear Srinivas, why do you want to waste our
time with such silly questions. 

Sorry I ventured to answer your post. There is no point for me to waste
my time or your time in trying to clarify your misunderstanding of
advaita.  

Good.  Keep up your sadhana. 

God bless you.

Hari OM!
Sadananda 

 
> 
> >If there is one and I am seeing two, I got to get
> >my eyes checked up. 
> 
> How do you know there is "only one" to begin with ? When I born, I did
> not
> know myself to mention. As I grew, I came to know my existence and
> other's
> (mothers to begin with). In such scenario, how did you assume there is
> only
> one and thought you need to get your eyes checked ?
> 
> 
> >You are absolutely right - no need for all that If I have no notions
> or
> >visions of two when there is only one. The upadesha all that is
> >therefore relavent only to those who see dwaita when there is only
> >advaita. 
> 
> Please understand the objection. I am asking "if everything is Brahmn,
> why
> do we need all these shAstra?". 
> 
> >Let me tell you a story - there is this jobn who suddently thought he
> is
> >a rat and not a human - do not ask me how and when he got that
> notion. 
> >He has been rat all along, according to him. His wife somehow took
> him
> >to a doctor and after many sittings he was tought that he is a man
> and
> >not a rat. He did everyday that japa - he is a man and not a rat.
> John
> >who are you - he said I am a man and not a rat.  Eveybody is happy -
> He
> >went back home. But after some time he came running back to the
> doctor -
> >When doctor asked what is the problem - he said I know I am a man and
> >not a rat, but how can I be sure that cat in the street knows that I
> am
> >a man and not a rat.
> 
> I am afraid, the analogy is not correct. In your story, John was not
> thinking he is a rat to begin with, right ? He was thinking he is
> human and
> suddenly for some reason he started feeling he is a rat, right ?
> 
> Now, in our vedantic situation, the reverse is true. To begin with, no
> one
> thinks he/she is Brahmn. Originally everyone thinks he/she is human.
> Whatever "I am Brahmn" (aham brahamasmi) comes to mind is only later
> (after
> one reads Veda), right ? Now tell me, which is John and which is Rat
> ??? :) 
> 
> In the same line,  let me tell another story...
> 
> Once an ordinary Bill after reading an newspaper article about Bill
> Clinton,
> ignoring the "Clinton" part, he started thinking he is same as Bill
> Clinton
> and indeed president of US and trying to move his belongings to White
> House
> to live there. Guess what ? you know where he ended up !! "SriKrishna
> jnamastLa" a.k.a jail ! No offence intended, but just for humor, we
> can say,
> since Brahmn (Sri Krishna) also born there, "aham brahamasmi"
> literally came
> true for Bill :)  
> 
> 
> >Srinivas - it is indeed like a dream - when a tiger is chasing in
> your
> >dream, you run for your life - is it not. When when you are awakend
> to
> >higher state of reality that is the waking state only - you realise
> that
> >the whole dream world is your mental projection.  It is the similar -
> >the plurality is taken as reality and suffer the consequences of this
> >misunderstanding - Scriputure is giving a different vision of youself
> >than what you think of yourself.  
> 
> But Sadanada-ji, Tiger is also an real animal in awaken state. Don't
> you
> agree ? But in your school, no tiger nothing apart from Brahmn in
> absolute
> reality, right ?
> 
> In the similar lines, T.P.Mahadevan wrote; Advaitic concept of
> realization
> using not-so-real shruti is like awakening to an lion's roar in the
> dream.
> His argument is lion's roar is not real but awakening is real !  But
> my
> problem in understanding his analogy is ; the dreamer got to be aware
> of
> such animal as lion in awakened non-dreaming state in order to get
> scared
> for virtual lion's roar in the dream. If I am not aware of an animal
> in
> reality , how can I wake up from such virtual animal in the dream ?
> So, in
> order to make sense of what Shrutis are conveying now, Shrutis  have
> to be
> *as real as* the awakened state, which is Brahmn. Any thoughts ?
> 
> Regards,
> Srinivas.
> 


=====
What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com